Sunday, August 24, 2008

In light of the kind of feedback I have received from readers over the past few years, I think it is apropos to offer my disclaimer on my views on women. It may come as a shock to my regular readers and foes alike that there are some views that I don't hold about women:

1. I don't believe in limiting myself to courting supermodels, exceptionally attractive women, and the such like.

2. I don't believe that if I am a lazy slob with a poor physique, poor hygiene, poor earning potential, and poor social skills that I should expect to win the affections of women with a higher social status than me.

3. I don't believe that women have to make me happy, always agree with me, or just tell me what I want to hear, not even as a condition for being my wife.

4. I don't believe that I am entitled to love and physical intimacy of any woman unless she freely gives it to me by the vow of marriage.

5. I don't believe husbands have the right to be inconsiderate and unresponsive to their wives' concerns.

6. I don't believe that any woman has to get married and/or have children in order to be complete.

7. I don't believe it's necessarily a sin for women to work outside the home or even to have a prestigious career.

8. I don't believe in paying someone less or turning them down for a secular job simply because they are female.

9. I don't believe in taking away a woman's right to vote or hold public office (unless we want to do the same for men as well).

10. I don't believe that women are necessarily less logical than men.

11. I don't believe that women are necessarily less intelligent or competent than men.

12. I don't believe that woman are necessarily less virtuous than men.

13. I don't believe that women are necessarily less spiritual than men.

14. I don't believe that women have less intrinsic worth than men.

15. I don't believe in treating the female body as a commodity for media (e.g., the advertising industry).

16. I don't believe in leering at women and/or making sexually suggestive comments about their bodies.

17. I don't believe in a work environment where women are expected to act out in a sexual manner in order to please clients, co-workers, or the boss.

18. I don't believe in making any sexual advances towards a woman unless I'm married to her.

19. I don't believe in supporting the sex industry.

20. I don't believe any woman deserves to get raped or sexually assaulted, not even by her husband.

21. I don't believe any kind of physical or psychological abuse against women is acceptable or even a trivial matter.

22. I don't believe government has an inherent right to tell women what to do with their reproductive organs.

23. I don't believe past generations necessarily hold the secret to resolving the problems that face men and women today.

Now the bad news:

I still believe the Bible delegates the oversight of the local church and the home to men. I still believe that only men are allowed to teach in the worship assemblies of churches. I still think churches have sold out to woman-firsterism. I still believe that anti-male sexism is serious problem in our society (including government's tyranny against men and the demonization of male heterosexuality by leftists and rightists alike). I still believe that marriage has become a liability for men. I still believe men don't need women to the degree that many people think. I still believe that many women are not marriage material and that many of them are single to due their demeaning attitudes towards men and their arrogant sense of entitlement. I still believe many women have succumbed to Nanny-Statism. I still believe that society panders to the worst in women. I still believe feminism is evil. I still believe that abortion is murder and should be outlawed. I still believe in speaking my views about these matters unapologetically. In essence, I ask you to think before you pigeonhole me.

75 comments:

I agree on all points, and #23 is probably the one that causes much of the problem: there are many otherwise fine Christian leaders who think that all we need to do is treat people like society did in the 1930s, and our problems would go away.

Trouble is, (a) the "good old days" mindset is exactly that, a mindset and (b) the relational framework from that generation--that produced more and earlier marriages and children--requires a much larger social revolution that we are not likely to get anytime soon.

The feminist is not solely responsible for all aspects of the crisis of protracted singleness, but does bear some responsibility.

A full-time career woman may find herself well into her 30s before she wakes up and realizes, "Oh shit! I am still single!" She may not have planned on being single that long, but time flew on her.

That sends her into a rush to get married, and--with her biological clock running the 2 minute warning--her level of risk also goes up. She may find herself lowering her standards.

Trouble is, her career-mindedness could foster a level of selfishness and perfectionism that may drive many good men away. And if she hasn't taken good care of herself, she might find that men aren't attracted to her.

On point 8, I think that a true capitalist system would allow folks to be free to discriminate as they see fit, based on the things that they value.

Point 9, I think it's empirically observable that women's suffrage has resulted in less freedoms for all. But I also think that universal suffrage is just as bad, as I explained over at Triton's place.

Point 15, I think it's ironic that the very system and set of people...patriarchy and men...are the ones who are the most respectful and protective and most resistant to the commodification of the female body, while women and feminists seem to be the ones who are full-on for marketing it for profit.

Point 22: Are you talking about abortion? Or just legislating sexual morality in general? If the former, I strongly yet respectfully disagree with you.

"I still believe men don't need women to the degree that many people think."

An interesting point...it seems to me that we have been teaching our girls and boys that women offer a form of salvation for men. That women "save" men from a life of depravity and slothfulness. I've even heard pastors parrot that line. It's a form of idolatry in my book.

Regarding #11, I believe the average man equals the average woman in intelligence; most studies show a gap that is too small to be considered statistically significant. It is at the fringes, though, where things get interesting.

The intelligence bell curve for men is a lot wider than the bell curve for women. The result is that most idiots and most geniuses are men, whereas most folks of average intelligence are women. These differences would definitely affect competency; if you are hiring for a job only a genius or an idiot can do, then you will find more qualified men. If the job requires average intelligence, you will find more qualified women.

Regarding #12, this one seems to ebb and flow with history. At times, women have been perceived as more virtuous; at other times, men have been perceived as more virtuous. So if you don't like the way it is now, just wait a century or two.

Regarding #13, I believe women are more spiritual than men, if by spiritual you mean religious or quasi-religious. Not only are women more likely to go to church, but they are also more likely to believe in horoscopes and palm readers and such.

Regarding #15, I disagree. I appreciate the point about advertising, but I definitely think that there is a place for human beauty in media. I think some of Leni Riefenstahl's work, for example, is an excellent example of a filmmaker presenting the male body as an object of beauty in a way that isn't crass or overtly sexual.

Regarding #19, I don't quite know what you mean. Are you talking about porn? Prostitution? Sex toys? Viagra? I can't agree or disagree without more specifics.

Regarding #22, again, I'm not sure what you mean.

In essence, I ask you to think before you pigeonhole me.

I think guys like us will always be pigeonholed. We might as well get used to it.

Triton: The reason I use the rule/exception logic in this case is that there is a Biblical precedent for God using women in leadership capacities. Deborah and Huldah in particular.

And yes...I understand the argument that neither of the two were "pastors" or "elders", but that argument rings hollow, given that (a) they were in a position of spiritual leadership, and (b) they performed extraordinarily during times of crisis in which the male leadership was either (a) nonexistent or (b) clueless.

I mean come on...when the High Priest finds the Book of the Law in the Temple, and none of them know what it is, then you got a really, really bad situation.

Does that mean that God can only call a woman to such leadership when men aren't doing it? I dunno.

I DO know this much: I think I've met 1--maybe 2--women in my life who have shown evidence of such a calling, and hundreds more who thought they had but the evidence showed otherwise.

I applaud the list. Thanks. I feel better and it was something I was wishing you would do.

The second half concerns me.

1. As women become more independent and have better jobs, men are LESS likely to pay alimony (SC).

2. I overhead some Mexican men talking about their wives and bringing them here. They were telling each other that you have to treat her well and listen when she talks to you, even when the game is on. If you treat her well, you don't have to worry about her leaving you. They didn't like machismo where men would invite each other over so they could show off to their friends how badly they treated their wives to show off who was boss. The man should expect certain benefits when he is the only one working, and while the woman working can cause problems, they agreed it also has benefits and it takes good communication to work them out. There were THEIR words and I think we can all learn something from them.

3. Are you against female evangelists or against actual ordination and leading a church service? Are women allowed to conduct the choir? Sing a song? Play guitar for the worship band?

4. Having children is always a liability as the cost of everything has gone up. Children are usually a part of marriage. But it can be quite costly to deal with child support when not married.

5. With Molly Maid and microwaves, you're right, a man doesn't need a woman for the same things anymore. But a man has always been able to hire help and go out to eat even 100 years ago. So having a wife is something special.

6. A woman may hit 30 and NOT be career minded or even a feminist. She could be a teacher.

7. My ex-bf is a great guy in some ways, but does manage to slip in sexual comments--and some--not all--men do this without thinking. I can accept him, but if he were to say those thing at work, he could get in alot of trouble. I said his ego needs stroking and he said that's not all that needs stroking. Now he knows I'm not going to do anything of the kind, it was clearly a joke and I smacked him on the back.Change the person or the context and I would walk away and complain to the boss or never talk to the guy again--which I have done in the past. Some men--not all--might forget to change the context and not realize they are being offensive. But that's a matter of social skill to know the difference.

3. Are you against female evangelists or against actual ordination and leading a church service? Are women allowed to conduct the choir? Sing a song? Play guitar for the worship band?

I believe the spirit of what we see in the pastoral epistles is the premise of women leading men in a teaching/preaching capacity, in particular as an overseer.

There are very few instances in Scripture in which women are in such leadership positions. I named a couple of them. They are clearly the exception to the rule.

What we are seeing today is mostly a big-time joke. Show me one who preaches otherwise sound doctrine, and with authority, and you may have a case.

As I said, I've met one--maybe two--who might qualify. The others are so far off the reservation--almost all of them feminists, some of them lesbians even--that the evidence of a calling just isn't there.

As for choir leaders, I do believe Miriam serves as precedent for that. And don't forget that--when she attempted to challenge Moses' leadership--she was stricken with leprosy.

Anakin can elaborate more on this, but I'd say that Nanny-Statism is the mindset that relies in government (especially federal government, but it does go on at the state and local level) to do for people what people ought to be doing for themselves, or interfering with commerce to account for the bad risks people take.

I agree, but I do believe women are more inclined to listen to emotions over logic unless they are incredibly disciplined to place logic over emotion or they are not your typical woman and do not have strong emotional reactions.

I still believe men don't need women to the degree that many people think

With your stipulation of "to the degree that many people think", I can't argue against this one very thoroughly because I don't know what you mean by "many people think". However, I do believe men need women. Women were created for that need. Yes, there are men who don't need marriage. And there are women who don't need marriage... And I guess this is where I'm more inclined to agree with Boundless - I think those are exceptions... If I were to truly embrace everything that scripture says about the role of women, the best place for me would be in marriage - and that would be the best place for me for my husband as well.

There were a couple others, such as paying someone less because they are a woman (I agree on the part about turning them away from a job). I have my reasons for this disagreeing with this, however the direction corporations are going, the majority of them can not disadvantage women like this for much longer.

On #22, government has no right to tell women what to do with their reproductive organs or hold men responsible for a women's choice in how they are used.

On #23, I don't think that past generations hold the secret, but new is not always progress.

On the "bad news":

I would use responsible leadership instead of oversight. To me oversight is just being the boss, leadership is something else all together. Anyone can boss others, it takes much more and requires much more heavenly help to lead.

I think that only the Holy Spirit teaches and can do so through any conduit. However men have a call to lead and be responsible for the teaching. They will receive the guidance they need if they ask, and more importantly, if they listen.

Everything else I agree with whole-heartedly. I also think that far too many men and most women have succumbed to Nanny-Statism.

I didn't really intend for it to be a line-by-line it just kind of turned out that way.

6. A woman may hit 30 and NOT be career minded or even a feminist. She could be a teacher.

Oh, I know that. I'm referring to the general, not the particular.

As for teachers, they are like anyone else. They're a mixed bag. There are career-minded ones, even feminists. I had several in my high school--a relatively conservative one--who were VERY active in NOW and NARAL.

On the other hand, as I was saying, some careers are more amenable to women than others. Cubbie and myself have blogged no small amount regarding the mathematics of pursuing certain professions.

In some--principally law and medicine--you are likely to find yourself well into your 30s before you are really established. By then, the fertility clock is nearing the 2-minute warning.

Again, I'm very libertarian: I'm all for women doing what they want. On the other hand, when one fails to consider opportunity cost, it can become quite painful later.

I know a woman--in her early 50s--who did exactly what she was taught. She went to college, got a good degree, went to law school, got established at a good firm, and is now a full partner and has money coming out the ears.

Unfortunately, she might never marry. In spite of her worldly success, she is now past her prime in terms of attractiveness--and she hasn't taken very good care of herself--and her fertility is long gone. Moreover, she is a very wealthy person in a profession that rewards people for being control freaks. (And she is one.)

The field of men who would remotely be interested in her has been narrowed by her choices in life.

And yes...she lives a good life otherwise. She has two homes, nice vehicles, no debt, lots of money, and even an active church life.

But she always wanted to marry and have children, and--barring another Zacharias/Elizabeth or Abraham/Sarah situation--that will not happen.

A large part of the reason for her predicament is that--by her own admission--she got wrapped up in her career, and time passed her by. During that time, she went from being relatively fit to very unfit.

In the process, she pretty much threw up her hands and resigned herself to singleness.

To her, it's bittersweet. Has she "wasted it"? In my opinion, no. She has had a good life, been very active in church, has taught classes, has played in the orchestra, and has been in encouragement to many.

But she would tell you that the loneliness sucks, and that she would rather be the bride than be the piano player at everyone else's weddings.

Amir et al--I know what the concept of nanny-statism is, it's just that it seems like where I've been leaving comments, the defnition always goes 1-5 steps (or more) farther than I would take it. So I want to make sure I understand what "you" mean.

My views are quite conservative--however this also depends on the region of the US for the filter I'm seen through. In CA, I'm conservative. In the South, a liberal. In New York, a raging conservative.

Now I am teasing in a way, but I really want to see you guys out there with signs protesting women's sufferage so you can see for yourselves how reactionary your views are--just a test run.

T don't know what to make of the biological clock arguement, it's depressing to think that men assess me on the how fast they think my biological clock is ticking rather than what kind of relationship we might have. But then, some men fall into the "out for fun" category or the IKDG set. If they are out for fun I don't think risking STDs or pregnancy with someone who already looks like he would try to weasel his way out of being a daddy by trying to coerce me into getting an abortion.

I'd rather go to my grave childless than be in a bad relationship just to have children.

Amir, your friend in her 50s should still take care of herself. She might still meet someone she likes, who knows.

Steve in TX--not all women are into soap operas, bridal magazines or romance novels. It makes me wonder if I should be since so many women are. I'd rather watch college football than read a romance novel anyday.

T don't know what to make of the biological clock arguement, it's depressing to think that men assess me on the how fast they think my biological clock is ticking rather than what kind of relationship we might have.

Depends on what the man is looking for. If he is thinking in terms of raising a family, then someone who is older might not fit.

Moreover, someone who is older might be more stubborn and independent and more functionally feminist. That could create issues beyond the normal tensions that one would expect.

I say that not as a putdown, it just is what it is.

But then, some men fall into the "out for fun" category or the IKDG set. If they are out for fun I don't think risking STDs or pregnancy with someone who already looks like he would try to weasel his way out of being a daddy by trying to coerce me into getting an abortion.

We are assuming the Christian context, where the expectation is--whatever one's past may be--to save sex for the marriage bed.

I'm talking about marriage; you are referring to a man who wants to shack up.

Why is it that you are lumping men into the extremes: those who commoditize women in terms of fertility and those who want to screw around?

You have yet to mention the prospect of a Christian man who wants a Christian wife, and hopes to have children with her, and pass a legacy to future generations.

On the coerced abortion front, that argument is overrated. In my 3 years as a crisis pregnancy center counselor, the only cases of "coerced" abortion were ones where the girl was 15 and the parents were doing the "coercing". None of the other counselors I worked with had cases where the "boyfriend" or even the "husband" was forcing her to abort.

We DID, however, have no small number of women who sought to abort against the wishes of their boyfiends or husbands.

One more thing along those lines: the courts have established that it is your right to abort, not that of your boyfriend or even your husband. Ergo, he has no legal ground to compel you to abort.

He does, however, have a legal obligation to pay child support. And you have the legal wherewithal to compel him to pay.

And--in spite of the hoopla over deadbeats--most who are compelled to pay up, do pay up.

I'd rather go to my grave childless than be in a bad relationship just to have children.

Other than some women in the Middle East who look at barrenness as the ultimate curse, few would disagree with your sentiments.

That said, you are lumping the possibilities into the worst extremes.

I've wrapped Triton on the knuckles for doing that to the women, so why should I let you get away with doing it to the men?

Amir, your friend in her 50s should still take care of herself. She might still meet someone she likes, who knows.

I agree. While childbearing is out of the question, companionship is not. And taking care of one's self does raise make one more likely to be "found".

Hey Anakin: If one tries to click on your link to the infamous "having coffee & a talk at Starbucks = inappropriate intimacy" essay at boundless, one gets a boundless-generated error message. Yet that essay is still up at boundless .. check it out.

Triton says:I'll wager most barren women, regardless of locale, look at barrenness as the ultimate curse.

I dunno. I think that would rank second to loneliness. Especially when they get older. The social stigma in the West is not nearly what it is in the Middle East, or even close to what it was in the Biblical times.

I'll wager most barren women, regardless of locale, look at barrenness as the ultimate curse.

God help me, I do.

My gynecologist keeps suggesting birth control pills to me to help with my PMS and Acne. I'm at the point where I think I'm gonna go find a new doctor.

If you don't know what BC Pills do, let me explain just a bit - I promise, no TMI. They are hormone altering drugs. There are other types of BC that don't alter your hormones, but if my problem is PMS or acne, only a hormonal altering drug is going to help those problems.

Thing is, that they have an affect on fertility in the long run. Its funny, cuz I've taken them twice now for 2 days each - and I have to stop after the 2nd day because I can FEEL something not right with my body.

I had a friend in high school who has been on these kinds of pills since she hit puberty because her PMS was so bad. She was 18 when I met her...been on them for at least 6 years. Just broke up with her boyfriend of 4 years. I'd give her (in a perfect scenario) 1.5 years to get over him, 2.5 more years to get through college, .5 years to get married, 1 year off the pill before having kids...

So...where is she after that? 10 years on birth control? I hear that it takes far less to severely alter your fertility.

I can understand your concern - hormone "therapy" is a very big deal. There have been various correlative links to bad things from prolonged use.

However, I would suggest that you step back and approach this as any other problem to be solved - try to distance yourself from the emotional aspects and deal with it as a process question - it is afterall an issue of the feedback loops in your body not giving the desired results.

You may need to change doctors, some of them are not really interested in patient input (I don't know if yours is like this or not), but many are confronted daily with people that want a magic pill to solve all of their problems - the fact that you are not makes you a somewhat rare bird.

It sounds to me like the problem has not been fully analyzed. What part of the feedback loop is not working right? It doesn't sound like the doctor has done any testing - is the cause too much estrogen/not enough progestrone, the other way around or something else?You won't no the answer without blood work - likely a bunch of blood work. You will have to be pushy to get answers most likely.

Once you know what the root cause is, the solution more apparant. For example,if all you need is a little bit of progestrone for a few days a month to change the balance, there is no need to take any of the rest.

When you know exactly what will be needed, then you can do a cost/benefit analysis - what are the known short and long term risks involved with the specific hormone mix vs. the benefits.This is where emotions come back into play.They are intangibles, but you have to quantify them as best as you can. When you have them assessed, THEN you can decide if it is worth it.

BTW - your comment looked like a request for help - if you've already resolved this and my input was invasive, feel free to tell me to go suck eggs !

Oh and I think that using hormones to correct acne is like trimming your toenails with a submachine gun.

LOL! That made me laugh.

No, dr. is not good with patient feedback (doesn't do a good job listening). Wrote off my complaints of abnormality as sounding normal when that's how it is with ALL OTHER women...I felt like I had to beat him over the head with the phrase - "THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED TO ME BEFORE!"

Anyway, the problem hasn't been thoroughly solved, though I've found perhaps a decent solution that solves most of the problems - I'm just taking dietary supplements...like B-complex, GLA-complex, Iron, and Vitamin E. Occassionally I need to throw in a stress complex, but not often. It works when I take the combination daily...its just a lot of pills =/

Amir--not lumping ALL men, but it's difficult to discuss ALL men. I was reacting only to the scenario that you had mentioned and some of the worst case scenarios that I have been through lately and with the non-dating dude. Incidentally, my ex bf with the anger problem honestly comes out the best out of all of them, despite the issues that he/we had. That's why i'm still in touch with him.

One of my best friends from college, and other friends from college went through great lengths to have children. From one, it was all I heard about. I told her that even if she never had children, she had a wonderful husband who loves her. She now has two children and finally seems happy. I would have traded with her to have a husband that loved me like he loved her and not be able to have children.

Interesting creedal draft here, but as we know about creeds, it's one things to talk the talk, another thing to walk the walk.

I find it curious that you offer us many points on what you don't believe about women (esp. what you don't expect or demand of women), but as "bad news" you believe that "anti-male sexism is serious problem in our society" and note a number of other challenges for men. Yet, you don't seem to acknowledge any belief that there is any vestiges of "anti-female" sexism remaining or any other challenges for women.

Just as the feminists you denounce, you'll have a hard time maintaining much critical mass for your "MGTOW" cause based on solipsistic single issue victimhood, devoid of mutual understanding.

"Again, you are walking into the middle of a movie here....Feminist groups--with the media fawning over them--are always out there trying to educate the public about "anti-female" sexism....Folks like Anakin, Triton, even myself, are merely providing balance that would not otherwise exist."

Yes, yes, we all know about feminist groups (although they are a decreasing number) and other entities still fight anti-female sexism -- no one's walking in to the middle of any movie here.

But you can hardly claim that what you guys are doing here has anything to do with "balance", as if putting forth the MGTOW cause with the same excesses as the feminists you all criticize is somehow correction (and not retaliation). As they say, "two wrongs don't make a right".

A more viable men's issues stance would incorporate women's issues as well, with some reasonable response to them, rather than simply listing off all the problems that plague men and stopping there.

I'll continue to ignore your moot question, given that the fight for equal pay had nothing to do with the fight for abortion.

Isn't it just possible that MGTOW are fighting the battle with the same tactics that have been deployed for four decades against them? It's rather easy to state that two wrongs don't make a right, but then again the tactics used by the feminists proved to be very effective. One is forced to conclude, in order to fight in a war, even a war of words, one must use the tactics that the opposition uses. It's the only way to show how horrible they truly are. Expecting one side of the issue to tie a hand behind his back while two-handed blows continue to rain down on him is at best naive.

For years, many from the feminist camp have been saying that true feminism is about egalitarian laws for both genders. I for one have never bought into it, simply because it's only now that dissenting voices are being raised about how men are maligned unfairly, and those voices are few and far between.

While I would welcome more even-handed application of law, and a tempering of societal attitudes towards both sexes, it just doesn't seem to be happening. Talk is very cheap, and in the end it amounts to nothing at all. That includes websites and blogs that lend a voice to the voiceless, such as those dedicated to MGTOW. If we as men were supposed to suck it all up without complaint, why cannot women?

Nobody here is a threat to any woman, Anon. There is not one person here calling for a violent reprisal, nor for anything that would rob someone of their rights. But here again, who is to say what is a right and what is a priviledge?

My own philosophy, and I am betting it is the same for a lot of angry, disaffected men, is that life owes nobody a thing. It is unfair, but whoever said life is fair?

The language and tenor of the dispute will tone down, once a mass awakening takes place amongst women who have a lot to say, and the manginas that support them. In effect, equilibrium has been reached; neither side sees the other as being any sort of special class, or victim class, or entitled to anything. If cross words and hurtful language becomes part of the discourse, then it comes from both sides. One only need to look and see which side uses it to successful advantage. I will give you a hint:

It isn't the men's side.

I am willing to offer an apology to anyone whom I have affronted; thus I do. I know that there have been quite a few, and I genuinely am concerned with that. But, if the only means of reparation that can be had is by falling silent and not acknowledging my own anger, then it's too high a price to pay. It's better to be thought of as a barbarian by a few, than to be regarded as a doormat by the legion.

"Nobody here is a threat to any woman, Anon. There is not one person here calling for a violent reprisal, nor for anything that would rob someone of their rights."

Actually, I wasn't pointing out that this blog is "threatening" women, just that it invites men to take a whiny victim stance, which is hardly "balanced" (as Amir would claim) in its treatment of the issues particular to men and women.

But, since you bring it up, Elusive Wapiti's link to his post on another blog would tend to refute your claim:

"...most of us who advocate for the elimination of female suffrage also advocate for significant restrictions on the male franchise as well. The variant that I usually see is to limit the franchise to landowners; I advocate that the franchise be restricted to men who pay taxes and who do not receive money from the government in any fashion."

So, as much as Anakin (and others here) would deny that they believe in "taking away a woman's right to vote or hold public office (unless we want to do the same for men as well)", there sure seems to be a lot of enabling of those who think it would be a great idea.

So, as much as Anakin (and others here) would deny that they believe in "taking away a woman's right to vote or hold public office (unless we want to do the same for men as well)", there sure seems to be a lot of enabling of those who think it would be a great idea.

Actually, you are conflating two issues.

Issue 1: Whether women's suffrage has been a good thing.

Issue 2: Whether women's suffrage ought to be rolled back.

The case that women's suffrage has led to a host of undesirable societal consequences is a strong one.

On the other hand, that does not demonstrate that removing women's suffrage would lead to the reversal of said consequences.

My position is that we are in this universal suffrage business for better or worse.

Because many men have now been conditioned to milk the federal tit, combined with the fact that the AARP lobby is the fastest-growing political bloc, I doubt that reversing women's suffrage will not achieve the benefits, and in fact will have even more undesirable consequences.

So, as much as Anakin (and others here) would deny that they believe in "taking away a woman's right to vote or hold public office (unless we want to do the same for men as well)", there sure seems to be a lot of enabling of those who think it would be a great idea.

Enabling, or just letting people express their views?

I personally don't think voting matters much at all, regardless of who is doing it. But, if people, men and women alike, feel like they are contributing something then by all means, go for it.

Now, just as it always is, we must choose between a crap sandwich and a rotten egg...neither are acceptable over the other, but that is my opinion.

"That type of response is classic intellectual dishonesty, and that is why you are getting hammered on these pages.

The same group that gave you the former also gave you the latter, and the players were the same"

Ha. Excuse me, but the equal pay for equal work activism long predated pro-abortion activism. It would be nice for you to be able to assemble it all together as a package deal (speaking of conflation!), Amir, but it's not that simple and to try to simplify things in that way is not only intellectually dishonest, but just plain dishonest.

But at least we now know how you feel about women's suffrage, which by the way, is just a transparent scapegoat for so many of the guys on this blog, whose thinking kinda goes like this: women got the vote, so gov't got bigger, taking more of my taxes (as if they didn't pay more in feudal England, and as if we all wouldn't like more net income!) and creating a "nanny-state" that corrupts women, respectively, making it harder for me to be the big daddy and making it even harder to find a "decent" gal or keep her that way....whatever...

For the guys here who are always carrying on about the whole "women's suffrage" thing, it has long been apparent that it's all a great big red herring. A far-fetched excuse for failing to get or keep a wife. Yup. Sour grapes expressed into whine.

"Isn't it just possible that MGTOW are fighting the battle with the same tactics that have been deployed for four decades against them? It's rather easy to state that two wrongs don't make a right, but then again the tactics used by the feminists proved to be very effective. One is forced to conclude, in order to fight in a war, even a war of words, one must use the tactics that the opposition uses. It's the only way to show how horrible they truly are."

I'm sorry, but I've never heard anything more pathetic than thinking that (1) emulating the worst possible tactics of a movement is an effective way of fighting against it, and (2) that it's the only way to "show how horrible they truly are". Huh? Good luck! Especially with that second one.

And this is why MGTOW will never gain enough critical mass to effect much change. Very few men would really want to align themselves with something that sounds like a bunch of ineffectual, washed up, whining old lady feminists. Instead, why not take an approach more affirming to masculine dignity: identifying and separating the issues (ie. reform child support/access laws, dwindling male church attendance, involuntary singleness) and then logically and systematically work amongst yourselves to find solutions to these problems?

Ha. Excuse me, but the equal pay for equal work activism long predated pro-abortion activism. It would be nice for you to be able to assemble it all together as a package deal (speaking of conflation!), Amir, but it's not that simple and to try to simplify things in that way is not only intellectually dishonest, but just plain dishonest.

Excuse me, but the players were the same. Modern feminists--the very folks you would support for the "equal job/equal pay" fight--had EVERYTHING to do with the legalization of abortion.

Before any state had legalized abortion, ARAL--the predecessor of NARAL--was taking women to Mexico to have abortions. It was the feminist who marketed abortion, spearheading its legalization in Kansas, New York, and California.

It was the feminist who pressed the Roe v. Wade case to the Supreme Court, and sold it in terms of "women's rights".

It is the feminist who has fought all attempts to (a) implement a Human Life Amendment, (b) return the issue of abortion to the States, (c) keep federal judges who have a hint of pro-life sympathies from advancing to higher courts.

They were the same people who fought for "equal job/equal pay". They were the same ones who tried to ramrod the Equal Rights Amendment down the throats of Americans.

That a small group of feminists--Feminists for Life--opposes the abortophilia of the feminist movement is immaterial, as FFLA represents a miniscule proportion of feminists.

So please quit hiding behind a nuanced "no true Scotsman" argument, and quit trying to shift blame from the feminists on the abortion debacle. The more you try it, the more delusional you are looking.

The modern feminist has over 50 million babies against to compare any "gains" she can claim.

And yes, you are being dishonest with the facts.

But at least we now know how you feel about women's suffrage, which by the way, is just a transparent scapegoat for so many of the guys on this blog, whose thinking kinda goes like this: women got the vote, so gov't got bigger, taking more of my taxes (as if they didn't pay more in feudal England, and as if we all wouldn't like more net income!) and creating a "nanny-state" that corrupts women, respectively, making it harder for me to be the big daddy and making it even harder to find a "decent" gal or keep her that way....whatever...

Again, this is why no one takes you seriously here.

The issue of protracted singleness is a completely different matter than whether women's suffrage has served us good or ill.

As for the issue of protracted singleness, I've long contended that there are pockets of us--men and women--who are single for reasons beyond their control. You have done nothing but insult me personally when I have presented facts and thrown out pointed questions.

I have asked you hard questions regarding feminism, and you accuse me of attacking women for my singleness? You really are pathetic.

If you do wish to play that blame game, remember that it's a two-way street.

There are no books in print by evangelicals who blame women for the singleness dilemma; I know at least one who overwhelmingly blames men, and she got the endorsements of some of the leading evangelical figures in the world.

That we confront the cultural elitists in the evangelical world--and the feminist agenda that has made marriage extremely risky--is understandable.

Your dishonesty with respect to the facts--regarding the fruits of feminism--is quite telling, however.

For the guys here who are always carrying on about the whole "women's suffrage" thing, it has long been apparent that it's all a great big red herring. A far-fetched excuse for failing to get or keep a wife. Yup. Sour grapes expressed into whine.

What the hell do you know? What you aren't getting is that I don't need you--or any woman--to make me happy.

I have a good life; I'm not complaining about my lot in life; I'm educated; I have a career; I'm in excellent physical condition; I've got good friends; I've overcome challenges you wouldn't come close to understanding.

Would I like to be married? Absolutely. I aspire to that covenant, and would like for someone who shares those values and aspiration to be a Biblical help-meet. Stability, maturity, and evidence of a Christian life are musts. Feminists need not apply.

You accuse Anakin, triton, and myself of "sour grapes", not realizing that by supporting and defending feminism, you are only ensuring that the dilemma of protracted singleness will not get substantially better any time soon.

In fact, you're the only one who is expressing "sour grapes", as you have hidden your head in the sand when presented with pointed facts and straight questions.

Again, I have no desire to roll back women's suffrage, or that of anyone else for that matter. And I probably would have supported suffrage when the Amendment was proposed.

On the other hand, I am not going to deny the credible case that has been made regarding the fruits of suffrage. Nor am I going to suggest that any "gain" of the feminist is worth the price we have paid in human life.

If you would concede the utter failures of feminism, saying that--in spite of benefits you and other women enjoy and appreciate today--it is not worth the price we've paid in human life, then you'd get taken seriously.

I stand by my arguements regardless of whether you think them pathetic or not.

Why should men keep to a standard of behavior that meets with your approval, when feminists clearly have not for forty years? Men's stoicism has been misguided in the notion that it will garner respect from women. Men everywhere...though I imagine not all men...are tired of taking the high road against those that have no concept of acting in kind.

While I agree that the legal and social injustices perpetrated against men in wholesale fashion were done with the collusion of other men, they were not the instigators. They were mere tools of the women who's aim seems to be to destroy due process and the Constitution. Therefore, it is not for us to act as the principal agents to fix the mess; it is up to those that are willing to give up on their unfair advantages, and speak out against those that spoke for them with nary a squeak of protest. Silence is collusion, and we were not the ones who started this war.

Don't like how we are handing the situation? Gear up, because it's only going to get worse. Your shaming language and ad hominem is only pushing us further into the corner. You want to prosecute this war with the same under-handed tactics used for the last four decades? Don't be surprised if we take our gloves off too.

Isn't it just possible that MGTOW are fighting the battle with the same tactics that have been deployed for four decades against them?

I don't see how. Feminists use the heavy hand of government to force their collective will upon everyone; I haven't seen anything like that from the other side. The whole philosophy behind "men going their own way" has to do with peaceful withdrawal, not engaging in feminist-style totalitarian crap. We're not trying to forcefully change the rules of the game, we just don't want to play anymore.

Actually, you are conflating two issues.

Issue 1: Whether women's suffrage has been a good thing.

Issue 2: Whether women's suffrage ought to be rolled back.

The case that women's suffrage has led to a host of undesirable societal consequences is a strong one.

On the other hand, that does not demonstrate that removing women's suffrage would lead to the reversal of said consequences.

My position is that we are in this universal suffrage business for better or worse.

I'm in agreement with Amir on this. No matter how disastrous one thinks women's suffrage has been, eliminating it now would do little good, if any. The die has been cast and thrown; all we can do is try to survive the fallout.

Excuse me, but the equal pay for equal work activism long predated pro-abortion activism.

Really? I'd like to know when you think these apparently separate movements started.

as if they didn't pay more in feudal England

Well, I don't know about feudal England. But the American colonists paid a total tax sum of about 2.5% to the British Crown prior to the Revolution. And that was the rate paid by southerners; those in New England only paid about 1%.

As far as taxes go, we were definitely better off in the days when none of us could vote.

For the guys here who are always carrying on about the whole "women's suffrage" thing, it has long been apparent that it's all a great big red herring. A far-fetched excuse for failing to get or keep a wife. Yup. Sour grapes expressed into whine.

I've never failed to get or keep a wife because I've never tried to get or keep one. I haven't even asked a girl out in 15 years. I simply decided one day that girls weren't worth the hassle.

Here's a rhetorical question for all of Anakin's female readers. If you were a man, would you want to marry a typical American girl? Think long and hard before you decide.

"Modern feminists--the very folks you would support for the "equal job/equal pay" fight--had EVERYTHING to do with the legalization of abortion."

Rosie the Riveter and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 far predated the "abortion as female empowerment" women's libbers of the sixties. The abortion movement prior to that time was largely one of physicians, lawyers (particularly those with a LIBERTARIAN angle), and eugenics advocates, most of whom weren't even women -- let alone "feminists". As for the late 20th century feminists, sure, it's safe to say that all who supported abortion probably supported equal pay. But there's no way you can say that all who supported equal pay supported abortion -- of all the feminist issues, abortion had the least consensus (even among those who weren't exactly "pro-choice" but not exactly FFLA), especially among the older ones who fought the early equal pay battles. By this line of reasoning, going further and further back, you can pin abortion on the suffragettes (and I'm sure most here would).

Sorry, but if you're gonna keep going back pin the abortion issue on them, you must pin all gun deaths on Winchester right through to the NRA, asking if those things are worth the body count. Or the automobile and traffic fatalities. It's all a part of the "liberty" package, isn't it?

I don't see how. Feminists use the heavy hand of government to force their collective will upon everyone; I haven't seen anything like that from the other side. The whole philosophy behind "men going their own way" has to do with peaceful withdrawal, not engaging in feminist-style totalitarian crap. We're not trying to forcefully change the rules of the game, we just don't want to play anymore.

I agree with this, Triton. I was merely addressing the indictment that men are using similar language and tone as the feminists (anger begetting anger). I do believe, however, that in order to affect a change in the current legal climate, we would have to establish ourselves as a forceful and prominent special interest group. How do we do that? The same way the feminists have done and continue to do, which is get in everyone's face and apply arguements with a sledgehammer. So far, it seems to be the only way to be heard.

At the same time, should we even bother? That's the real question.

I am more inclined towards the whole MGTOW thing, but at the same time I think it's a bit misguided to rely completely on societal withdrawal as protection. It will keep you safe for a time, but not forever. When Hitler promoted his agenda of getting rid of the Jews, he did so by promoting them as a people who controlled finances, government, and probably ate babies, or something. I have to think that the average Jewish man probably thought that if he didn't occupy a position of influence, he was immune to the charges being made by the Nazis, and was safe from prosecution...after all, it had nothing to do with him personally. Ultimately, they came for him too.

I believe that if enough of the ugliness and injustice currently being spread around against men continues unabated, even the most cloistered man is in danger of being robbed of his dignity, freedom, assets, maybe even his life. It's happening now, with the gradual removal of his options.

Plus, I will admit to one thing that causes me no pride to admit:

If I am going to be called guilty, I may as well truly be called guilty.

Anonymous writes:Rosie the Riveter and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 far predated the "abortion as female empowerment" women's libbers of the sixties.

You are only giving credance to that part of the "equal job/equal pay" movement, and ignoring the part that doesn't help your case.

No discussion of "equal job/equal pay" would be fruitful if one excludes NOW, NARAL, the League of Women Voters, and the proponents of the ERA. The key players included Betty Friedan, Eleanor Smeal, and Gloria Steinem. And those were the same players in the abortion rights movement.

The abortion movement prior to that time was largely one of physicians, lawyers (particularly those with a LIBERTARIAN angle), and eugenics advocates, most of whom weren't even women -- let alone "feminists".

Actually, Margaret Sanger--while not an advocate of abortion--was one of the pioneers of eugenics in America.

And the abortion rights movement is very much on the feminists.

What has been imposed on America in that regard is anything but libertarian and is in fact very much classical fascism in every sense of the word.

As for the late 20th century feminists, sure, it's safe to say that all who supported abortion probably supported equal pay. But there's no way you can say that all who supported equal pay supported abortion -- of all the feminist issues, abortion had the least consensus (even among those who weren't exactly "pro-choice" but not exactly FFLA), especially among the older ones who fought the early equal pay battles.

FFLA is such a miniscule proportion of total feminists that they are not worth mentioning in this. I say that as a former member myself.

The feminists of the 1960s and 1970s were overwhelmingly pro-abortion (and from the Statist angle). The major players in that were the same ones who were the major players in the "equal job/equal pay" movement and the attempts to ramrod the Equal Rights Amendment down the throats of Americans.

By this line of reasoning, going further and further back, you can pin abortion on the suffragettes (and I'm sure most here would).

Hardly. All I am suggesting is that the sum total of all advancements of feminism are not worth the cost in human life.

So far, you have insisted on the glories of feminism--most of the benefits of which probably would have happened without the feminist in the first place--and attempted to mitigate the mass slaughter that is also a fruit of feminism.

Sorry, but if you're gonna keep going back pin the abortion issue on them, you must pin all gun deaths on Winchester right through to the NRA, asking if those things are worth the body count.

The evidence is credible that gun control only results in more gun-related homicides. Gun rights, in turn, allows the citizen to protect himself from criminals and government tyranny.

And as I've said, gun-related homicides are down 37% since 1981, sin spite of increasing--not decreasing--gun rights. Those are CDC stats.

Or the automobile and traffic fatalities. It's all a part of the "liberty" package, isn't it?

So are you suggesting that you accept 50 million deaths as a price for feminist "progress", just as one ought to accept automobile deaths as part of the price for technology?

"You are only giving credance to that part of the "equal job/equal pay" movement, and ignoring the part that doesn't help your case....No discussion of "equal job/equal pay" would be fruitful if one excludes NOW, NARAL, the League of Women Voters, and the proponents of the ERA."

Uh no, I said (and I repeat): Rosie the Riveter and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 far predated the "abortion as female empowerment" women's libbers of the sixties.

Just because the feminists of the 60's and 70's picked up the torch of the equal pay issue and then took up the abortion cause does not sully the fight for equal pay that took place in the 50's and early 60's.

If so, then by your line of reasoning, every women's issue take up by second wave feminists then requires the apologetic scrutiny of your purely rhetorical "is it worth the body count?" question! Yet you admit that most of these changes probably would have happened without the feminist in the first place!

So then, that mortgage I just obtained without a man's co-signature (as I would have had to throughout much of the last century), well that's just me, enjoying "the glories of feminism" at the expense of all those aborted babies, right?

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. A lot of things have changed over the past few decades and you can't just point to one vehicle of change, that by your own rationale wasn't even necessary, without looking at all the forces that were -- including the kinds of freedoms that were cultivated in America right from its inception.

I don't know how you making the logical leap that gun-related problems are down somehow because of increased gun rights -- aging of the population is almost universally recognized as the reason for most decreases in crime. I'm not going to demonize gun ownership, but I can't help but think that so many "gun-o-philes" seem glorify and project onto guns ownership all kinds of unproven, undeserved advantages that aren't really there. Obviously, there are consequences positive and negative to guns. I'm skeptical that they are needed to protect property (except from people who have guns, duh!) or that they are necessary to protect us from tyrannical govts (that being an artifact of colonial times -- as if your saturday nite special would protect you from their daisy cutters!). And any sane observer can see that the US has created a "gun culture" through its media (another artifact of "freedom", glorifying guns and the crimes that go with them and that this can't help but have a reinforcing effect.

Not that I'm knocking "freedom", but too many Americans seem to think that if only we were even freer than we are, a whole mess of problems would then go away, and I think that's just as naive as thinking you can legislate all the world's problems away.

In all, I don't doubt that the abortion movement of the past 40 years has been certainly spearheaded by the feminists, but when you say "What has been imposed on America in that regard is anything but libertarian and is in fact very much classical fascism in every sense of the word.", I have to laugh, because nothing would be more facist in the minds of most libertarians than to overturn a ruling that would surely result in less freedoms as many states would surely rule against abortion. Don't kid yourself -- libertarians are overwhelmingly pro-choice, holding their noses as they support Ron Paul.

"So are you suggesting that you accept 50 million deaths as a price for feminist "progress", just as one ought to accept automobile deaths as part of the price for technology?" No. I'm turning your rhetorical question back on you to demonstrate how inconsistently you apply it.

I don't know how you making the logical leap that gun-related problems are down somehow because of increased gun rights -- aging of the population is almost universally recognized as the reason for most decreases in crime.

Nonsense. Widespread gun ownership has been repeatedly shown to be a deterrent to violent crime. John Lott (yes, him again) wrote the book on the subject.

When guns are outlawed, other weapons will be used. In the U.K., they are talking about "knife control" to combat the violent crime rate that has, unsurprisingly, increased since they banned guns.

I'm skeptical that they are needed to protect property

Defensive use of firearms occurs all the time in this country. Usually just brandishing the weapon is enough to make the criminal change his mind.

or that they are necessary to protect us from tyrannical govts (that being an artifact of colonial times -- as if your saturday nite special would protect you from their daisy cutters!)

The Afghans managed to defeat the nuclear-armed Soviet Union with nothing more than small arms. The Viet Cong performed a similar feat against the United States. Neither of these are products of "colonial times".

And any sane observer can see that the US has created a "gun culture" through its media

The gun culture long predates the media. The Founding Fathers didn't write the second amendment after watching a shootout on CNN. And only an idiot would venture off into the wilderness to face wild animals and the Indian tribes without a firearm.

Don't kid yourself -- libertarians are overwhelmingly pro-choice, holding their noses as they support Ron Paul.

Yes, many libertarians, especially those in the LP, are pro-choice. Many are also in favour of open borders. They are wrong on both counts.

This isn't a result of libertarian ideology per se, but rather the result of a Libertarian Party that just wants to smoke pot and rent hookers and doesn't really care much about more important issues (like fiat money). If they hold their noses to vote for Ron Paul it's because they are more libertine than libertarian.

Uh no, I said (and I repeat): Rosie the Riveter and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 far predated the "abortion as female empowerment" women's libbers of the sixties.

Just because the feminists of the 60's and 70's picked up the torch of the equal pay issue and then took up the abortion cause does not sully the fight for equal pay that took place in the 50's and early 60's.

On the other hand, what I am suggesting is that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 had little to do with the advances of the 1970s, which were trending in the direction of "equal work/equal pay" due to free market dynamics. This means (a) the feminists of the 1960s were largely irrelevant, (b) the laws they helped put in place have actually done more harm than good to the economy--as they increase the cost of doing business for smaller firms--and (c) modern feminism is even more damnable, as they have even fewer gains to which to point.

Can you name one--or any set of benefits--attributable to modern feminism that is worth the body count?

As for gun ownership, again, gun-related crimes are down over 37% since 1981 in spite of looser gun laws. Moreover, those cities with the most Draconian of gun laws seem to have the highest murder rates.

Lott actually does a remarkable job demonstrating that looser gun laws are good for reducing crime rates. This is probably why--in spite of all the anti-gun efforts--citizens overwhelmingly support more gun rights. So do most cops I know.

And that is the thing: I can make the case that more feminism--especially the modern variety--leads to more societal disaster. I can point to abortion, birth control, their embracement of the population control agenda (marketed as greater access to birth control), and even their secondary participation in the sexual revolution, not to mention a theological disaster.

The early feminists were actually quite liberal theologically, as even the best of the bunch were Victorian, and this led to a very unBiblical presentation of Jesus. (Susan B. Anthony was herself quite Unitarian.)

When you look at women preachers, the overwhelming majority of them identify themselves as "strong feminists", and their presentation of Scripture--devoid of Orthodoxy-- reflects that.

On gun rights, the issue is one-dimensional, and the case is strong that gun rights has been good for society. One would have a very difficult case to make for feminism, even in part and certainly not in whole.

Early feminism has been a cancer in the church. Modern feminism has been Stalinism on steroids.

Even the feminists of the 1960s--for their focus on "equal job/equal pay"--have little gain to which to point. Trying to identify with them is laudable, but to do so excludes the parts of feminism that are not convenient to your case.

In contrast, a credible case against the NRA isn't even there. Gun rights have been the law of the land before the states even ratified the Constitution.

The NRA's involvement in promoting gun rights is actually a recent development, and only arose because of government infringement on gun rights.

I'm not going to waste time debating gun freedoms with you guys, since it's obviously your second religion. As I anticipate a luxurious long walk home tonight in the dark through my reasonably safe Canadian city, I'm only glad that I can live my life so fearlessly. I'm aware that most Americans in cities of comparable size would not advise any woman to do the same thing. btw- I notice that you completely ignored my MVA comparison, but speaking of the consequences of freedom...

"what I am suggesting is that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 had little to do with the advances of the 1970s, which were trending in the direction of "equal work/equal pay" due to free market dynamics...Can you name one--or any set of benefits--attributable to modern feminism that is worth the body count?"

What you're saying here is that modern feminism had no benefits (that positive changes like equal pay would have happened anyways, with or without feminism -- as if feminism itself is not a byproduct of "free market dynamics"!), yet when I "enjoy" any advancements for women that may have been championed by feminists (among others), well then, as a woman (even one who did have or support abortion), then I must apologize for that, considering the "body count" of abortion, because they also happened to fight for that one as well.

Well, excuse me, but I don't hear you apologizing for any of the benefits afforded to you as a consequence of "free market dynamics".

And so for that reason, I will not entertain a rhetorical question that essentially singles out all women, that whatever benefits they "enjoy" in that free market must be reconciled with the costs (whereas, you don't apply the same cost-benefit analysis to the same consequences that have come about through men exercising their freedoms). But that just doesn't happen on this blog, since ignoring all that is your idea of "balance", right? Whatever. I'm done.

(1) You can't carry on a rational discussion without personally insulting anyone. So far, you've called me a "gun toting conspiracy theorist", referred to gun rights as "my second religion", and also expressed that the extent of my experience is being a "short Christian". That really wins a lot of respect.

(2) You have conveniently ignored the reality that feminism--historically--has been a matter of layers.

The Victorians and Unitarians undermined the Biblical presentation of Jesus and perverted sound theology. Oh, but they supported women's suffrage.

The feminists of the 1940s-early 60s were for "equal job/equal pay". What you fail to understand is that the "equal job/equal pay" movement was in fact a socialist one aimed toward getting everyone making the same salary.

That undermines free markets, innovation, and ultimately the standard of living, as we learned from the Communist experience.

And that leads me to the modern feminists, with Friedan, Smeal, Yard leading the charge. Aside from their genocidal agenda, they were avowed socialists who strove to push America toward socialism.

What is the point in all of this? Each layer of feminism built on the previous one. And as much as we direct our ire at the Puritans today--some of that being valid--it was the Victorians who did far more damage both culturally and theologically.

As for modern feminism, any benefit to which you can point--including the ability to get a mortgage without a man co-signing--is petty next to the body count.

I never said you had to apologize for the benefits you enjoy, but you really are making yourself look petty by not conceding that the large sector in your movement has some serious hell to pay for the carnage they have wrought.

And no...the benefits of feminism..in whole or part, are not worth the cost we have paid. The body count alone is bad enough, but we could include the war against masculinity, the undermining of sound Biblical theology, and the nanny state fascism we have endured.

(3) That I do not address every argument you make hardly constitutes a concession on my part; I simply don't have enough time to address every point, so I address the ones that I think are worth addressing. It's the Pareto principle.

And as much as we direct our ire at the Puritans today--some of that being valid--it was the Victorians who did far more damage both culturally and theologically.

I wouldn't quite agree with that. Socialism and its various offspring have always had their roots in New England, even during Victorian times. I would say that Victorian socialism/feminism/whatever was a product of a Puritan culture.

And New England hasn't changed its spots at all; they just ditched the Christian facade behind which they rationalized their nonsense.

Have you read Albion's Seed yet, Amir? If not, I recommend it. It's the best work I've seen on early American social history, and I've seen a few.

"So far, you've called me a "gun toting conspiracy theorist" Nope. I said that's all you'd be left with.

"referred to gun rights as "my second religion" If the shoe fits...

"and also expressed that the extent of my experience is being a "short Christian". Actually, I'm glad you brought that up. You're assuming I meant that as a slight, but having come from short stock myself, I was genuinely acknowledging something that actually gets dismissed a lot: that short men do miss out on a lot of romantic opportunities -- and the shorter they are, the more they are likely to miss out on things like marriage and children. As you've also aptly said, many people are single for circumstances beyond their control.

I really didn't mean it as an insult, so I apologize if it came off that way. However, it would be like ignoring the elephant in the living room if we were to just buy into your opinions about women without considering the influence of a characteristic that would so profoundly affect your experience with them.

Anyways, I don't have the time either to address every point you have made. But that you are so quick to characterize anyone who supports any women's issue ever championed by feminists as being feminist themselves ("your movement") and quick to boil so much of society's (and men's) problems down to sex wars and the female contribution to them (without looking much at the male contribution), well, I think that says a thing or two about you.

However, it would be like ignoring the elephant in the living room if we were to just buy into your opinions about women without considering the influence of a characteristic that would so profoundly affect your experience with them.

My opinions about women? Good grief...where have I suggested that women were more depraved than men?

In fact, Anakin and myself have been making the point that men and women are--and have been ever since the fall--equals in that department.

We are merely providing balance to the male-bashing that goes on among our top evangelical leaders.

I don't agree with Anakin or Triton or MLV on every point--if you'd bother to read us with any level of intellectual honesty, you'd find that we are hardly a mutual admiration society--but they do bring attention to issues that our most prominent leaders are sweeping under the rug.

Anyways, I don't have the time either to address every point you have made. But that you are so quick to characterize anyone who supports any women's issue ever championed by feminists as being feminist themselves ("your movement") and quick to boil so much of society's (and men's) problems down to sex wars and the female contribution to them (without looking much at the male contribution), well, I think that says a thing or two about you.

I referred to "your movement" because you are the one who has so steadfastly attempted to defend feminism.

If guns are my second religion, feminism is your first, second, and third.

Two can play that game, Anonymous.

Have I ever bashed you over your singleness? Hardly.

I've long-maintained that singles--of both sexes--often find themselves unmarried longer than they ever hoped or planned, and for reasons beyond their control.

We have writers in the evangelical world who blame the men for this. We have evangelical leaders--such as the President of a very prominent seminary--who endorse that viewpoint.

(For the record: I was a member of the church at which he is a "teaching pastor". I would be happy to illumine him about what goes on in his own church any time, anywhere.)

Even the prominent men's ministry gurus have bought into the male-bashing angle, as they have inflated headship theology to levels that are heterodoxical at best and actually breed misogyny.

As for feminism, you keep basking in the glories of it if you wish.

Keep in mind, however, that the feminist has possibly played a very critical role in your protracted singleness.

The unintended consequences of feminism are nothing short of staggering. If you wish to defend them, you go right on ahead.

After all, I respect the religious freedom of everyone, including those who worship feminism.

I said "However, it would be like ignoring the elephant in the living room if we were to just buy into your opinions about women without considering the influence of a characteristic that would so profoundly affect your experience with them."

And you said: "My opinions about women? Good grief...where have I suggested that women were more depraved than men?'

Actually, you don't come across as seeing men and women as equals in that department because you keep insisting it's your "experience" of church communities that there are less women (and less "decent" or "marriagable" women) than men in your "age group". When in fact, there's numerically a shortage of church-going single men across all age groups -- which you keep denying, despite the stats from churchformen.com, a source touted by so many of the guys here!

I have a hunch that it seems like there's a shortage of "decent women" to you, but it's actually a shortage of women who not only you'd be romantically interested in, but who'd also be interested in you. And again, I don't mean that to be insulting, but rather to fairly acknowledge the challenges that shorter men have in dating.

But to comment on the shortage of men in our churches seems to be the greatest offense to you -- as if it's suggesting that men are more "depraved", when I haven't said that at all! Things that feminists of yore regard as signs of male depravity -- things that would be more properly regarded as masculinity or normal aggression --there are things that I tend to give grace to, on this blog and life in general.

As you have mentioned before, there are sins, hardships and "issues" that do tend to befall one sex more than the other (I think the example you once gave was more men in prisons, but more women with eating disorders). But you cannot deal with gender issues in isolation -- that we learned from the excesses of feminism. You cannot have a "balance" to what you identify as "man bashing" by calling everyone who dares to mention any hardship for women as "feminist".

You are right that feminism has played a role in the protracted singleness of women -- but it's faithful churchgoing women that especially bear the brunt of this. Those who play by the rules in the no-sex-before-marriage department are outnumbered by those in world who don't, and then (surprise, surprise) are undersupplied with potential mates in their churches.

But then, of course, if those women *really* wanted to get married, they should be quite happy to marry someone a lot shorter than them, right? Ergo, if you're still single, then there couldn't possibly be any Christian women enduring a "man shortage", could there?? I think that's where you're coming from.

Actually, you don't come across as seeing men and women as equals in that department because you keep insisting it's your "experience" of church communities that there are less women (and less "decent" or "marriagable" women) than men in your "age group".That is partiality to men =p

When in fact, there's numerically a shortage of church-going single men across all age groups -- which you keep denying, despite the stats from churchformen.com, a source touted by so many of the guys here!Not certain I'm in TOTAL agreement here, but that the imbalances are in different areas... More men in rural, more women in cities kinda thing... But then, it could very well be that the TOTAL is also imbalanced - and it could very well be in favor of women (meaning more women then men overall). But I don't really know.

You cannot have a "balance" to what you identify as "man bashing" by calling everyone who dares to mention any hardship for women as "feminist".So true...God help me if I ever dare to mention that women have a history of being the "inferior" class much the same way the men are now... And that for a genuine, God-fearing, honest woman, life ain't as dandy for her, either.

Yup, same thing happened to me last fall on Scripturally Single, on the Et Tu Josh Harris thread that was slamming him for suggesting on his blog that feminism might have been averted if it wasn't for men misusing their power in the first place. I went into how past financial dependency of wives afforded the husband a certain amount of indulgence. Even if according to "civil codes" he had certain rights and responsibilities, in reality a man could exercise his fancy or not, without the consequence of losing his marriage. So of course, this cultivated some imperviousness to the wife's experience, to the point where truth is his to define-- "2 plus 2 equals 5", if you will (something that would otherwise evoke contempt among those how are not dependent and subject to your power). Just like in a union shop where people are guaranteed a job regardless of what they do or don't do (even if there are good intentions behind much of those hapless actions/inactions), you will get the same "work to rule" mentality...and we all know where that goes.

After years of having this privilege, it has taken men a bit of adjusting to the idea of marriage being more of a partnership. But the ones that are doing it are the ones who are having the highest rates of success in marriage. The ones who don't get it only evoke contempt-- 2 plus 2 equals 5 just doesn't cut it anymore. The modern incentive to not sabotage your marriage requires that everyone in it act justly, even if that doesn't always happen.

And I think that's what Harris was trying to acknowledge in his blog post: that much of what is called feminism inevitably happened in response to men's unchecked behavior, but of course, any such observation only evokes contempt here, regardless of how it gets discussed.

Sir, I am sorry that you believe headship only goes to men; I could not be more convicted that this is false. However, other than this, I believe you are a purely awesome man! I have rarely seen such reason and fairness to both men and women. You speak of feminist faults without tolerating male ones and, most importantly, without hatred. Even though you are a complimentarian, I see none of the patriarchal bias that exists in so many other websites. Thank you truly sir, and kudos to you.

Billy, I'm afraid you're quite wrong, and your attitude is what fuels a great deal of feminism: women are useless to troubled men, they don't get the leadership, they should just be quiet. I almost laughed at your wording, because you complained of feminism and then showed the very attitude which generates it! This is not about competing; in the Body of Christ, both genders are required to share in fellowship, not compete. The role of leadership is given to GOD; men and women are both required to preach His works. I suggest you uncurl your fist, quite powerless in the light of God, and accept this, because no strong woman is going to listen to you and your fussing will not change God's Plan.

I always thought there was something wrong with me when I told people I want to have children before entering graduate school, but now I know there isn't anything wrong at all. I would often get the feminist arguments of "you can do both" (um, I don't want to), or "having a baby over 30 isn't a big deal anymore" (it IS to me! I want healthy babies!) and "you should get a career before a family" (sorry, that argument won't work either).

I am so glad that my husband agrees with me, and that there are other men out there with similar views. In no way have you postulated that women are inferior doormats to be abused. If anything, your viewpoints follow Biblical principles on how a man should treat women.

Which is how, Anon? Keeping them quiet and out of the way? There's nothing wrong with wanting kids and no job; what's wrong with you is your silly agreement with dismissing women because they don't care enough about uplifting males. Lording leadership for men is not Biblical, sweetheart; sorry.

And btw, I care greatly about men's problems. Such as losing their kids, having their reputations damaged, being stolen from in court. NOT having to share leadership with women. If the latter's your "problem", you'd best stop whining.

No, but Billy did. And you appeared to agree with everything he said. Forgive some of my sarcasm, but that and your words dismissing me were irksome. I know the difference between the horrors men have faced from feminism and the importance of sharing leadership; I've seen both, and the tendency of some males to hord leadership and condemn women who reach for a share is harmful.

His comment was to say that women can never be equal (because the church is never equal to God, a horrible anology) that leadership is for men and that women shouldn't compete. It was very plain and very limiting: We can't lead, which means the only role for us is following.

Hi, this is an article that I wrote on the difficulties I had in my marriage (feminism) and how God saved it. http://truefeminismnaphtali.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-taming-of-shrew.html#!/2012/11/the-taming-of-shrew.html

About This Blog

This is a blog about "biblical manhood." I am not here to give Bible-believing men a list of do's and don'ts. Plenty of others already make a living doing that. My intention is provide a scriptural response to anti-male sexism. My intention is to proclaim the truth to the status quo and defend those who have been denied a voice for far too long. In this, I believe I am following the example of my Lord and Savior.